this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
49 points (96.2% liked)
Casual UK
2371 readers
42 users here now
Casual UK
A casual place for banter and anything that doesn't fit in anywhere else.
Have chat and a natter. Talk about anything and everything that's not political!
Keep it casual.
Rules
- No politics.
- Be friendly.
- Be kind & civil.
- Follow Feddit.uk site rules.
Other communities:
Here:
Elsewhere:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ok, this might be controversial, but….
Farms that have been in a family for generations, and the current owner plans to continue farming should not have inheritance tax levied on them. If a farm is sold, then additional tax can be paid at that point.
Million/billionaires buying farms for the purpose of avoiding inheritance tax (Clarkson) or obtaining millions of pounds in subsidies (Dyson) should be paying double.
The people producing food are already getting screwed over on prices, and the suicide rate among farmers is scarily high. We should be helping these people, not victimising them for protesting or crippling subsequent generations when they start.
But no, they shouldn’t be blocking public rights of way or trying to intimidate people. But that’s not just farmers, that’s money-hoarding land-hoarding bastards too like those on Dartmoor.
I actually support the farmers in this tbf. I just wanted to make a shit joke about them blocking green lanes and footpaths.
I try to avoid conspiracybrain but this policy seems so badly designed it seems as if the point is to force farmers into reverse mortgages.
If the real point is to make money for the treasury, discourage land banking and encourage more productive use of land, then a very modest land value tax would be more suitable and much fairer.
As it is, it's going to dispossess farmers of land and make a tiny amount of revenue from a tax that big business is immune from.